Author
Topic: Constantinople I (Read 5481 times)

Does anyone here know when the OO officially confirmed the version of the Nicene Creed as was expounded at Constantinople I? It appears that this was not done at Ephesus I; that Ephesus I referred to Nicaea I but not Constantinople I; and that the Creed confirmed at Ephesus I was rather the original Nicene Creed.

Also, does anyone know when Constantinople I was confirmed to be the Second Ecumenical Council?

It appears that the answers to these questions for the Chalcedonians is that this happened at Chalcedon, but obviously the answer cannot be the same for the OO.

From what I understand, Constantinople I was originally a local council and came to be accepted as Ecumenical over time. I don't think anyone knows the exact time it happened with the OO's. We know that the Armenians accepted it by the early 500's, as it was mentioned, with Nicea and Ephesus I, at the Council of Dvin. If you click on the tag below, you'll see other threads mentioning it.

1. It seems that Constantinople I wasn't mentioned at Ephesus I. Can anyone confirm this?

No. Nestorius' owed his ecclesisatical position to Constantinople I.

Quote

2. Was it mentioned at Ephesus II?

Pope Leo questioned why St. Flavian was placed after Antioch and Alexandria.

Quote

3. It seems that it was mentioned at Ephesus III. Can anyone confirm that? Also, was it mentioned as being one of the Ecumenical Councils?

I'd like any information on Ephesus III.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Does anyone here know when the OO officially confirmed the version of the Nicene Creed as was expounded at Constantinople I? It appears that this was not done at Ephesus I; that Ephesus I referred to Nicaea I but not Constantinople I; and that the Creed confirmed at Ephesus I was rather the original Nicene Creed.

The Armenian Church does not use the creed expounded at Constantinople I. The other OO Churches do that, while the Armenian Church uses one of the Jerusalem versions of the Nicene Creed. Our Creed is very like one of the Creeds mentioned by St Epiphanius of Cyprus, about which he says, "And this faith was delivered from the Holy Apostles and in the Church, the Holy City, from all the Holy Bishops together more than three hundred and ten in number.” “In our generation, that is in the times of Valentinus and Valens, and the ninetieth year from the succession of Diocletian the tyrant, (This would be the year 374, that is to say seven years before this Second Ecumenical Council which was held at Constantinople in 381.-ed.) you and we and all the orthodox bishops of the whole Catholic Church together, make this address to those who come to baptism, in order that they may proclaim and say as follows: We believe in one God, the Father Almighty...” etc etc.

Does anyone here know when the OO officially confirmed the version of the Nicene Creed as was expounded at Constantinople I? It appears that this was not done at Ephesus I; that Ephesus I referred to Nicaea I but not Constantinople I; and that the Creed confirmed at Ephesus I was rather the original Nicene Creed.

The Armenian Church does not use the creed expounded at Constantinople I. The other OO Churches do that, while the Armenian Church uses one of the Jerusalem versions of the Nicene Creed. Our Creed is very like one of the Creeds mentioned by St Epiphanius of Cyprus, about which he says, "And this faith was delivered from the Holy Apostles and in the Church, the Holy City, from all the Holy Bishops together more than three hundred and ten in number.” “In our generation, that is in the times of Valentinus and Valens, and the ninetieth year from the succession of Diocletian the tyrant, (This would be the year 374, that is to say seven years before this Second Ecumenical Council which was held at Constantinople in 381.-ed.) you and we and all the orthodox bishops of the whole Catholic Church together, make this address to those who come to baptism, in order that they may proclaim and say as follows: We believe in one God, the Father Almighty...” etc etc.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Does anyone here know when the OO officially confirmed the version of the Nicene Creed as was expounded at Constantinople I? It appears that this was not done at Ephesus I; that Ephesus I referred to Nicaea I but not Constantinople I; and that the Creed confirmed at Ephesus I was rather the original Nicene Creed.

The Armenian Church does not use the creed expounded at Constantinople I. The other OO Churches do that, while the Armenian Church uses one of the Jerusalem versions of the Nicene Creed. Our Creed is very like one of the Creeds mentioned by St Epiphanius of Cyprus, about which he says, "And this faith was delivered from the Holy Apostles and in the Church, the Holy City, from all the Holy Bishops together more than three hundred and ten in number.” “In our generation, that is in the times of Valentinus and Valens, and the ninetieth year from the succession of Diocletian the tyrant, (This would be the year 374, that is to say seven years before this Second Ecumenical Council which was held at Constantinople in 381.-ed.) you and we and all the orthodox bishops of the whole Catholic Church together, make this address to those who come to baptism, in order that they may proclaim and say as follows: We believe in one God, the Father Almighty...” etc etc.

Does anyone here know when the OO officially confirmed the version of the Nicene Creed as was expounded at Constantinople I? It appears that this was not done at Ephesus I; that Ephesus I referred to Nicaea I but not Constantinople I; and that the Creed confirmed at Ephesus I was rather the original Nicene Creed.

The Armenian Church does not use the creed expounded at Constantinople I. The other OO Churches do that, while the Armenian Church uses one of the Jerusalem versions of the Nicene Creed. Our Creed is very like one of the Creeds mentioned by St Epiphanius of Cyprus, about which he says, "And this faith was delivered from the Holy Apostles and in the Church, the Holy City, from all the Holy Bishops together more than three hundred and ten in number.” “In our generation, that is in the times of Valentinus and Valens, and the ninetieth year from the succession of Diocletian the tyrant, (This would be the year 374, that is to say seven years before this Second Ecumenical Council which was held at Constantinople in 381.-ed.) you and we and all the orthodox bishops of the whole Catholic Church together, make this address to those who come to baptism, in order that they may proclaim and say as follows: We believe in one God, the Father Almighty...” etc etc.

Could you, pls, tell me what the important thing is that is written there on this Creed, if you have read it all. I was unable to read all of it. It is very long.

Epiphanius' Ancoratus contains a Creed identical to Constantinople. Somewhere here I've posted an exposition by Theodore Mopsuestia: he refers only to Nicea, but the Creed he expounds on is Constantinople's.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

That book doesn't have an index, so I wasn't able to find much, but fwiw here is an excerpt that I believe talks about the Third Council of Ephesus (475)...

Quote

"Instructed by Theoctitus, Timothy left the capital and made his way to Alexandria, halting en route at Ephesus to take part in a council of eastern bishops. In its enthusiasm the assembly of bishops held at Ephesus under the presidency of Timothy endorsed the encyclical and passed its resolution against Chalcedon's ruling with reference to Constantinople. This latter decree of the council may well have pleased certain persons in the east at that time, but it could never obtain acceptance from Constantinople. Chalcedon's decree, for instance, had granted the patriarch of the capital the right to consecrate bishops for the provinces of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, over which Ephesus had exercized jurisdiction. (Footnote: At Chalcedon the rival claims of Stephen and Basanius for the see of Ephesus were resisted in favour of John, whom the people did not accept. They raised Paul, but he was expelled by the state. now Basiliscus recalled him. This council supported Paul who had signed the encyclical.)

The Ephesine council felt gratified that it made a great achievement, and the encyclical was signed by Timothy Aelurus, Peter the Fuller, Anastasius of Jerusalem, Paul of Ephesus and, as Zacharia notes, by bishops of the east numbering about seven hundred men. The bishops addressed a reply to Basiliscus, affirming the faith of Nicea as it had been upheld by the later councils of 381, 431 and 449, condemning Macedonianism and Nestorianism as well as those who maintain that the Lord Jesus Christ had his body only as an appearance, and that it had come form heaven. The success here was short-lived." - Fr. V.C. Samuel, The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined, (The Oriental Orthodox Library, 2005), p. 121

I've been leafing through the book The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined and haven't found anything else on Ephesus 3, but I did find the following, which sort of relates to the Creed of Nicea...

"The situation in other parts of the east was far from encouraging. In Jerusalem, for instance, Juvenal had been succeeded by Anastasius in 458. He signed the encyclical of Basiliscus and unlike many others in the east he stood loyally by it till his death in July 478. His successor, Matyrius (478-486), continued the policy of his predecessor. He tried to unite the people in the whole of Palestine on the strength of a statement of faith which he noted in a circular letter. It affirmed that Christ had brought us unity which we should conserve by holding to the creed of Nicea as the only symbol of the faith; that this creed had been ratified by the councils of Constantinople in 381 and Ephesus in 431; and that no addition made to it whether at Sardica, Ariminum, or Chalcedon should be admitted." - Fr. V.C. Samuel, The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined, (The Oriental Orthodox Library, 2005), p. 123

Admittedly, this isn't much help, but I thought I'd post it anyway. Was Martyrius under the impression that Constantinople 1 didn't make any alteration to the creed and merely ratified it? Would he have accepted the Nicene-Constantinoplitan creed if he had known about it?

Constantinople 381 wasn't really well known before Chalcedon. It is mentioned by a synod in Constantinople in 382, the following year, and is called ecumenical - but this simply refers to its universal character having drawn together bishops from the Empire in the East. It was not mentioned by Ephesus 431 for instance.

Father, I am working on posting the documentation, e.g. the Theodosian Code, on Constantinople I. Once such document is none other than a exposition on the Creed by Theodore of Mopsuestia: he keeps refering to the Nicene Creed of the 318 Fathers, does not mention the 150 Fathers of Constantinople; nonetheless the Creed he uses is Constantinople's, much as we now say Nicene Creed when we really mean the revision of Constantinople I.http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,14289.msg334134/topicseen.html#msg334134

Quote

The creed was read out at Chalcedon and some consider this establishes it as ecumenical. But it was the action of Justinian in declaring it one of four ecumenical councils which set it apart.

Justinian called the Fifth Ecumenical Councils.

Quote

Rome refused to accept the canons of Constantinople 381 until 1215, when Constantinople had in any case been taken over by the Latins. Pope Felix III d. 492, only accepted three ecumenical councils, Nicaea, Ephesus and Chalcedon. It was not until Hormisdas d. 523, that Constantinople was considered on a par with these, and even then the canons were not accepted.

The canon in question, 3 was the same as 28 of Chalcedon, which Rome had problems with. However, Rome still asked why Flavian was after Antioch at Ephesus II, reflecting the order of Constantinople c. 3.

It would be rather hard, nay impossible, to accept Chalcedon and not accept Constantinople I, as Chalcedon is explicite as putting it on a par with Nicaea I and Ephesus (I) (P and G, vol. II 11-25).

Quote

This is an interesting case since with regard to the OO we are often condemned because we cannot accept every aspect of the EO councils, especially the anathemas against the saints, but clearly Rome refused to accept various canons and was in communion with the Eastern Chalcedonians throughout the first millenium.

There is a question of how much Rome "rejected," as it followed the same canons when it suited her.

Quote

I think that the case of Constantinople 381 allows us to see that ecumenical first had the meaning of a universal gathering of bishops from across the Empire to deal with a matter of concern to the whole Church and Empire. That it then came to mean a council which had a lasting authority throughout the Empire, and then finally to the concept that it was infallible in every word and aspect and must be received as a divine fiat.

I don't agree in the details, but your overview, Father, is accurate enough.

Quote

Ephesus II is an ecumenical council. It was called to deal with a matter which affected the whole Church and Empire, and it gathered together bishops from the whole Church and Empire. It received Imperial assent and became Imperial Law. What it taught seems to me to have been true and necessary. Therefore as far as I am concerned it has authority.

So, where does that leave Eutyches?

Quote

in my opinion the OO preserve the middle concept in which a council has authority because it is true and because it represents the mind of the universal Church. I don't see that the OO have developed the later concept in regard to councils, though this does not mean that those councils which are considered authoritative are not greatly respected, especially Nicaea and Ephesus I, and then at some time between the 4th and 6th centuries also Constantinople 381. (I don't know when we started using the Nicene-Constantinopolitan version of the creed). But they are understood as events within the life of the Church and as manifestations of the conciliar activity in the Church seen in a continuum from the humblest local synod of a minor bishop, through metropolitan synods, up to universal councils of bishops from the whole empire. It is the same Holy Spirit at work, and the same humanity which sometimes obscures and confuses the work of the Spirit. Yet when there is that which is seen to be true then it is recognised by the Church and has the authority of the truth, no further authority is needed.

Eutyches describes his position several times in his statement as being that of Nicaea and Ephesus. In one sense he is correct, that was his position. The Nicaean creed spoke of Christ as being consubstantial with the Father, and as having been made man of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. This was exactly what Eutyches confessed. And just [as] he had not found the creed using the term 'consubstantial with us', so he also hesitated to use it. He has rightly been described as an 'Old Nicaean', although it was a weakness in his Christology not to have embraced the complete terminology of St. Cyril, since he claimed to be a disciple of the great Alexandrian.

page 9.

The problem is of course, that Nicaea did not speak of Christ so, nor did Eutyches, but Constantinople I did, and it became an issue in Eutyches trial (and St. Flavian's deposition), as shown above. As Price and Giddis note (vol. III, p. 212) "the council [of 150 Fathers at Constantinople I] simply completed the work of its predecessor [at Nicaea I] and did not claim independent authority." Hence the usage of the Fathers, amply demonstrated (and again here by Fr. Peter) of refering to Constantinople I as the Nicene Creed, and using the Creed of Constantinople I as the Creed of Nicaea.

The article (p.11) also quotes Dioscoros at Ephesus II (G. and P. vol. I p. 295), questioning the representatives of Eutyches' monastery:

Quote

891 Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: 'Regarding the coming of the Saviour in the flesh, do you believe the same as the blessed Athanasius, the blessed Cyril, the blessed Gregory [the Theologian], and all the Orthodox bishops?"892. Eleusinius deacon and monk said: 'We believe the same as the Holy Fathers who met at Nicaea and those who assembled here.'

The reference to St. Gregory the Theologian is interesting, as he neither met at Nicaea (where Pope St. Athanasius did as the deacon of his predecessor at Alexandria, whence the Egyptian tradition that he wrote the Nicene Creed) nor at Ephesus (presided by Pope St. Cyril). He did preside over Constantinople I (after St. Meletius of Antioch, who was not in Alexandria's diptych at the time, and whose successors the successors of Popes Athanasius and Cyril were at odds with, Pat. Domnus being deposed by Pope Dioscoros at Ephesus II). No mention of that Council, yet St. Gregory appears as a touchstone of the Faith all the same.

« Last Edit: January 22, 2010, 11:23:45 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

It would be helpful to find a detailed modern study of the transmission of the Nicene creed. It is clear, as you show, that what was called the Nicene creed began over a period of time to actually be the text which we would now call the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed.

How did this process take place? What reflection took place in different places? etc etc. Was there resistance to the Constantinopolitan additions or where they easily accepted as being 'Nicene'? Why then was there resistance to modifying the creed later on? What about the example of the filioque? Does this show a fluidity in the text of the Nicene creed at this period?

I am not in a position to answer these questions. Perhaps we can find relevant studies. But it seems to me that Constantinople was not rejected by the OO, or the EO in many places, but it just became accepted and then was formally accepted at Chalcedon by some of the Church, and was accepted formally in different times and places among the OO. I wonder when the Georgian Church accepted it for instance? I will try and find any references to Constantinople in the writings of St Severus.

Of course none of this means that the substance of Constantinople was in doubt. The councils do not create the faith, they bear witness to it.

Does anyone here know when the OO officially confirmed the version of the Nicene Creed as was expounded at Constantinople I? It appears that this was not done at Ephesus I; that Ephesus I referred to Nicaea I but not Constantinople I; and that the Creed confirmed at Ephesus I was rather the original Nicene Creed.

The Armenian Church does not use the creed expounded at Constantinople I. The other OO Churches do that, while the Armenian Church uses one of the Jerusalem versions of the Nicene Creed. Our Creed is very like one of the Creeds mentioned by St Epiphanius of Cyprus, about which he says, "And this faith was delivered from the Holy Apostles and in the Church, the Holy City, from all the Holy Bishops together more than three hundred and ten in number.” “In our generation, that is in the times of Valentinus and Valens, and the ninetieth year from the succession of Diocletian the tyrant, (This would be the year 374, that is to say seven years before this Second Ecumenical Council which was held at Constantinople in 381.-ed.) you and we and all the orthodox bishops of the whole Catholic Church together, make this address to those who come to baptism, in order that they may proclaim and say as follows: We believe in one God, the Father Almighty...” etc etc.

That book doesn't have an index, so I wasn't able to find much, but fwiw here is an excerpt that I believe talks about the Third Council of Ephesus (475)...

Quote

"Instructed by Theoctitus, Timothy left the capital and made his way to Alexandria, halting en route at Ephesus to take part in a council of eastern bishops. In its enthusiasm the assembly of bishops held at Ephesus under the presidency of Timothy endorsed the encyclical and passed its resolution against Chalcedon's ruling with reference to Constantinople. This latter decree of the council may well have pleased certain persons in the east at that time, but it could never obtain acceptance from Constantinople. Chalcedon's decree, for instance, had granted the patriarch of the capital the right to consecrate bishops for the provinces of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, over which Ephesus had exercized jurisdiction. (Footnote: At Chalcedon the rival claims of Stephen and Basanius for the see of Ephesus were resisted in favour of John, whom the people did not accept. They raised Paul, but he was expelled by the state. now Basiliscus recalled him. This council supported Paul who had signed the encyclical.)

The Ephesine council felt gratified that it made a great achievement, and the encyclical was signed by Timothy Aelurus, Peter the Fuller, Anastasius of Jerusalem, Paul of Ephesus and, as Zacharia notes, by bishops of the east numbering about seven hundred men. The bishops addressed a reply to Basiliscus, affirming the faith of Nicea as it had been upheld by the later councils of 381, 431 and 449, condemning Macedonianism and Nestorianism as well as those who maintain that the Lord Jesus Christ had his body only as an appearance, and that it had come form heaven. The success here was short-lived." - Fr. V.C. Samuel, The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined, (The Oriental Orthodox Library, 2005), p. 121

The Encyclical of Basiliscus was signed by a great number of Eastern bishops, over 700.

We have a record of a gathering of local bishops in Ephesus who signed it, and they take the opportunity of mentioning those councils they consider authoritative, and which includes Constantinople I. This would have been in 475AD. This quotation is from the Chronicle of Zachariah.

"But now that the light of the true faith has arisen upon us, and the dark cloud of error been rolled away from us, we make known by this declaration our true faith to your Majesties and to all the world. And we say that freely and with willing consent, by the aid of John the Evangelist as our teacher, we have signed this Encyclical; and we agree to it and to everything in it, without compulsion, or fear, or favour of man. And if at any future time violence shall meet us from man, we are prepared to despise fire and sword and banishment and the spoiling of our goods, and to treat all bodily suffering with contempt; so that we may adhere to the true faith. We have anathematised and we do anathematise the Tome of Leo and the decrees of Chalcedon ; which have been the cause of much blood-shedding, and confusion, and tumult, and trouble, and divisions, and strifes in all the world. For we are satisfied with the doctrine and faith of the apostles and of the holy fathers, the three hundred and eighteen bishops; to which also the illustrious Council of the one hundred and fifty in the Royal City, and the two other holy Synods at Ephesus adhered, and which they confirmed. And we join with them in anathematising Nestorius, and everyone who does not confess that the only-begotten Son of God was incarnate by the Holy Ghost, of the Virgin Mary; He becoming perfect man, while yet He remained, without change and the same, perfect God ; and that He was not incarnate from Heaven in semblance or phantasy. And we further anathematise all other heresies." But they wrote down some other things. And they applauded with loud voice and approved.

It is interesting that all of the latter councils which they accept are viewed as Nicene, and not as additional in their own right. It is the one Nicene Faith which is propounded by all four councils - Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus I, Ephesus II.

The Encyclical of Basiliscus also refers to Constantinople I, and therefore at least the formal acceptance of it as being a Nicene council seems to be explicit in the text, and therefore accepted by the 700 Eastern bishops who signed it...we decree that the basis and confirmation of human prosperity, namely the creed of the 318 holy Fathers who in company with the Holy Spirit were assembled at Nicaea long ago, into which we and all the faithful before us were baptized, this alone governs and holds sway over the Orthodox people in all the most holy churches of God, as the only valid definition of the unerring faith, and being sufficient for on the one hand the universal destruction of every heresy, and on the other the most utmost unity of the holy churches of God. Clearly their proper force is also accorded to what was transacted in this imperial city by the 150 holy Fathers for the confirmation of the same divine creed against the blasphemers of the Holy Spirit; and in addition also, all that was transacted in the metropolis of the Ephesians against the impious Nestorius and those who subsequently shared his views.

We can also note that when Peter Mongus wrote to Acacius of Constantinople in 484AD he also spoke of the 150 Fathers at Constantinople confirming Nicaea.

The Armenian Church does not use the creed expounded at Constantinople I. The other OO Churches do that, while the Armenian Church uses one of the Jerusalem versions of the Nicene Creed. Our Creed is very like one of the Creeds mentioned by St Epiphanius of Cyprus, about which he says, "And this faith was delivered from the Holy Apostles and in the Church, the Holy City, from all the Holy Bishops together more than three hundred and ten in number.” “In our generation, that is in the times of Valentinus and Valens, and the ninetieth year from the succession of Diocletian the tyrant, (This would be the year 374, that is to say seven years before this Second Ecumenical Council which was held at Constantinople in 381.-ed.) you and we and all the orthodox bishops of the whole Catholic Church together, make this address to those who come to baptism, in order that they may proclaim and say as follows: We believe in one God, the Father Almighty...” etc etc.

This is interesting. I never knew this. I knew that we had an ancient version of the Creed, which is why it is different from the version used by others, but I didn't know this background, or that it came from Jerusalem.

In the Armenian Calendar thread, linked below, I mentioned that I heard that the Armenians early on looked to Jerusalem for guidance. Could our adoption of that version of the Creed have been the result of that?

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

There was, as far as I have studied, a great variety in the exact texts of the creed in the post-Nicene centuries. To accept the Faith of Nicaea was not taken to mean that the exact words were required.

When I last looked at the Armenian creed I discovered that many local bishops provided evidence of using slightly different words, while considering that they confessed the FAITH of Nicaea.

The Nestorians have a work of Theodore of Mopsuestia (condemned for his heretical Nestorianism at Constantinople II) commenting on the Nicean Creed (although it treats the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed), which says on the section in question:

Quote

It is with the (above) words that our blessed Fathers warned us and taught us that we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit was from the Divine nature of God the Father. This is the reason why He is confessed and believed in side by side with the Father and the Son at the time of initiation and baptism. Each one of us is baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, according to the doctrine of our Fathers, which is derived from the teaching of our Lord, so that it should be made clear and manifest to all that our blessed Fathers handed down to us the doctrine of the true faith by following the order of Christ. Even the words of the creed contain nothing but an explanation and interpretation of the words found in the teaching of our Lord. Indeed, He who ordered to baptise the Gentiles in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit showed us clearly that the Divine nature of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is one. It was not possible that He should induce the Gentiles—who were converted to the true faith by casting away from them the error of polytheism and rejecting those who were falsely called gods—to receive a teaching that drew them nigh unto the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, if He did not know the oneness of their Divine nature which exists eternally and which is the cause of everything; (nor would He have induced us) to secede from those who are not truly gods and to believe in one Divine nature which is Father, Son and Holy Spirit; to desist from calling creatures gods and to believe that the uncreated nature is one, which from nothing can make everything because it is truly Lord and God to whom this name and this honour are justly due.

The Profession of Faith of Saint Timothy, which he sent to the Emperor Leo by the Count Rusticus; and a partial history of that which happened to him afterwards.

Seeing that the illustrious Count Rusticus asked of me that I have regard to the Orthodox Faith, I make known my point of view in testifying that I anathematise all heresy, and those who say that the flesh of Our Lord came from heaven, or that it is an appearance, or that he did not have a rational soul. I also distance myself from the letter of Leo, governor of the Church of the Romans, who introduced a division into the one indivisible Our Lord Jesus Christ; because of which, I do not subscribe to the council of Chalcedon. For I was baptised, and I baptise, in accordance with the confession of the 318 holy Fathers of Nicaea; it is this that I preach and it is this that I believe, without any addition or subtraction, and those who believe in such a manner are in communion with me, for the Faith does not grow old and has no need of renewal with the passage of time.

I do not presume to say two natures in God who took a body and who was made man of the holy Virgin Mother of God. I confess above all the Faith, while I marvel with rapture at the indivisible, un-shakeable, and life-giving mystery of the Incarnation. It is a terrible thing indeed if the doctrines of each heresy stay as they are, and those of the Orthodox Christians change over time. It becomes an object of derision to the unbelievers if, in the last days of the world – while we wait for Christ our Saviour to come from heaven, in a frightening manner, for the second time – we are divided concerning the subject of the confession of his preaching. What will be made of those who, since the coming of Christ, baptised according to the symbol of the Faith? For me, therefore, in accordance with the divine Scriptures, this is the way I will live in Christ, with the same Faith which has been passed to me by the Spirit of holiness since the the first times; and this would be to me a blessing, of dying while keeping the profession of faith of the holy Fathers who recalled it without change, such as I received it and of which here are the contents: “I believe etc.”.

And after that finished, he said: Here is my faith; It is with this profession of faith that I request death and resurrection before the fearsome tribunal of Christ our Saviour, on the fearsome day of judgement when He comes in His glory, to judge the living and the dead. To Him be glory in the ages. Amen....

What caught my eye is that Pope Timothy refers to the Creed of the 318 Fathers of Nicea, but then goes on about Jesus Christ "who was made man of the holy Virgin Mother of God" (I'm assUming a mistranslation for Theotokos), refering to a clause that the 150 Fathers of Constantiople added (among others, e.g. "comes in His glory"). That is also determinative, as Eutyches was condemned by EP St. Flavian on that clause, and Chalcedon confirmed it, and Pope Dioscoros at Euphesus refused to hold Eutyches to that standard, and deposed EP St. Flavian for deposing Eutyches on it. I wonder what "I believe etc." said, Nicea or Constantinople's Creed, or did Pope Timothy distinguish between the two?

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I was able to dig up some of the council's texts. Do you still want it?

As always. Dank U!

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth